Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:20:14 No. 662869
>"Socially necessary labour" is just a clumsy, roundabout way of defining demand.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:25:14 No. 662873
>>662869 > supply and demand operates on the individual level. No.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:26:40 No. 662875
That's like saying kg and physical volume of what a train transports are clumsy ways of defining demand. (That is, you are talking nonsense.) The train is transporting stuff based on demand, the kg and physical volume are real. And you have to deal with these aspects of reality when loading the train, no way around it. And if you are an armchair theorist, you can close your eyes to it, but then why should anybody take you seriously? The kilos and physical volumes are out there, whether your eyes are open or closed. Same with labor time.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:27:01 No. 662876
Surplus value is all that's needed to show that the working class are exploited by capitalism, and the bourgeoisie have gotta go.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:27:53 No. 662877
>>662875 Demand is what gives commodities value, not labor.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:28:50 No. 662878
>>662876 There is no such thing as surplus value, just the marginal product of capital.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:29:57 No. 662879
Who keeps spamming this same threas kver and over. And jannies are just watching. Kurba pas mater.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:31:01 No. 662884
>>662881 We are not arguing about weight. We are arguing about use-value. Demand is what gives use-value.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:32:17 No. 662886
>>662885 You cannot define SNLT without referring to use-value or demand.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:34:37 No. 662889
>>662867 we had this thread already, like a few times
exchange value fluctuates above and below average socially necessary labor time.
the "hick-hack" between demand and supply is what creates exchange value
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:36:30 No. 662893
>>662889 >exchange value fluctuates above and below average socially necessary labor time. I see. I'm guessing since you're so confident you can provide a transformation between exchange value and socially necessary labor time? In your own words.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:37:07 No. 662894
>>662884 You don't get it. The analogy with weight was not a troll or a rough analogy, but a very tight analogy. Think. There is demand for the stuff that the train transports, that's why it gets put on the train. Without the demand, the train wouldn't carry the stuff. Don't you agree? So in a way demand
does give the train the weight. But it would be silly to say the atoms play no role in the weight. It's just like that with the necessary labor time. If that makes you feel funny, you should reconsider your belief system.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:38:13 No. 662895
>>662894 Atoms used towards stuff with no demand would make the labour "socially unnecessary" so you are making my argument for me.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:38:45 No. 662896
>>662879 Delete this thread then, it will only confirm that this critique of Marxism is unimpeachable.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:40:25 No. 662898
>Marx’s value theory is rather a monetary theory of value: without the value form, commodities cannot be related to one another as values, and only with the money form does an adequate form of value exist. “Substantialist” conceptions of value, which attempt to establish the existence of value within individual objects, are pre-monetary theories of value. They attempt to develop a theory of value without reference to money. Both the labor theory of value of classical political economy and the theory of marginal utility of neoclassical economics are pre-monetary theories of value. The usual “Marxist” value theory that alleges that value is already completely determined by “socially necessary labor-time” is also a pre-monetary value theory >Micheal Heinrich
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:41:40 No. 662901
>>662867 Modern Marxists reject LTV. So no we don't need that failed theory.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:42:20 No. 662903
>>662893 Transformation theory is not necessary for a whole understanding of the workings of capitalism. Money only has value to the businessman, not the theorist.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:42:47 No. 662905
>>662903 >Money only has value to the businessman, not the theorist ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:42:50 No. 662906
>>662895 >you are making my argument for me Your original argument amounts to stating that atoms don't exist.
>>662898 Trash take.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:43:07 No. 662907
>>662895 >I don’t know what SNLT is Thanks for clarifying
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:44:05 No. 662908
>>662906 >Your original argument amounts to stating that atoms don't exist. No, the original argument is akin to saying atoms exist but are not valuable in an economic context unless they have use value (human demand)
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:44:18 No. 662909
>>662898 This. People who think Marx invented "LTV" are fucking retarded. He just made up his own value-labor relation theory.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:44:48 No. 662911
>>662907 >I need to keep redefining what SNLT is when it is accurately attacked in Marx's writings Why are Marxists incapable of anything but motte and bailey?
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:45:16 No. 662912
>>662909 >He just made up his own value-labor relation theory. That he couldn't defend, otherwise the transformation problem would not exist.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:47:01 No. 662914
>>662911 Why are you too lazy to familiarize yourself with basic Marxist concepts before running your mouth? You look like a retard.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:47:26 No. 662915
>>662908 >No, the original argument is akin to saying atoms exist but are not valuable in an economic context unless they have use value (human demand) That would be true only if unwanted atoms could be just teleported away with no effort.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:49:23 No. 662919
>>662916 Give me your money then. Or are you a KKKapitalist?
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:49:32 No. 662920
>>662914 I know exactly how SNLT is defined in Marx's arguments (as a refutation to the "muh mud pies" argument), but it is nothing more than a restatement of human demand cloaked in terms of "use value"
Socially neccesary labour time is defined as labour neccessary on average to produce a commodity (i.e. something with use-value or something that satisfies human needs or wants, i.e SOMETHING DEMANDED)
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:53:17 No. 662923
>>662920 Socially necessary weight is defined as weight necessary on average of a commodity (i.e. something with use-value or something that satisfies human needs or wants, i.e SOMETHING DEMANDED).
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:53:49 No. 662924
>>662923 Restate your argument without incoherent analogies, please.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:55:12 No. 662926
>>662924 It would not be a fitting analogy to your position if it were coherent.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 15:56:53 No. 662930
>>662926 >tfw I have never seen a cogent refutation of this critique of LTV Why can't Marxists do it? They always resort to sophistry and "w-well you just don't get it!" even though SNLT is always defined exactly as it is in Das Kapital, and is shown to conceal a subjective theory of value, every time.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:04:16 No. 662939
>>662930 <The analogy to my position looks very silly indeed. <If the analogy is tight, that means my position must be silly. <So uh it can't be a tight analogy. It must be sophistry! That's a logical fallacy called
argumentum ad consequentiam , bucko.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:06:27 No. 662945
>>662939 Your analogy is not equivalent to my position. The fact that you are unable to state your argument against my position without resorting to a false equivalence analogy is telling.
I have never seen a single Marxist refute Nozick's arguments against LTV. I keep trying but none of you are intellectually capable of doing it.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:08:28 No. 662949
>>662945 <*shouts into forest* <*forest echo* <"LOL you are retarded forest got em" Pray tell, what is the difference.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:09:49 No. 662953
>>662949 You are unable to argue against the original point without concocting nonsensical and ill-fitting analogies to "debunk".
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:12:45 No. 662958
>>662867 "That hoe over there" is just a clumsy, roundabout way to define your mum.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:13:13 No. 662959
>>662953 You are just repeating your assertion that you don't want it to be seen as a good analogy. I asked you to point out what the difference is between the analogy and your position. Where does it not fit?
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:15:49 No. 662963
>>662959 Explain how your analogy fits and refutes Nozick's argument, coherently, first.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:22:14 No. 662967
>>662901 Speak for yourself cracker.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:24:47 No. 662970
>>662920 A good only has use values.
The commodity has both use value and exchange value.
Saying that the use value of the commodity exists is obvious, yet the exchange value of the commodity is not shaped by its use value. Use value cannot be quantified.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:25:00 No. 662971
>>662963 So you "know" it doesn't fit as an analogy, yet you can't point out where it doesn't fit? That is pretty strange. When I try on a shoe and it doesn't fit me
I know where it doesn't fit, I don't need anybody to point it out for me. Why would this be different?
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:32:30 No. 662983
>>662977 >I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:36:34 No. 662989
>>662983 >>662983 >still can't counter argument without nonsensical analogies Looks like I win.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 16:46:40 No. 663000
>>662989 We are only agreeing on one thing: If the analogy fits, you look retarded. I understand that you don't want to look retarded and I give you my emotional support for this journey of self-discovery.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 18:39:48 No. 663095
>>662886 Use-value isn’t “demand”. Demand is how many widgets consumers will buy at a certain price. Businesses actually do try to evaluate this, they will do a market analysis to estimate how many consumers are out there for their product, what their purchasing power is, how much of the market could be captured etc. to project revenue goals. You’re collapsing “demand” to one thing, the fact that it implies people desire a product for its ability to meet their needs. But this isn’t “demand” in total, nor is it an exclusive quality of the concept of demand. SNLT is only indirectly effected by changes in demand, SNLT is mainly the technical difficulty of producing commodities subject to competitive pressure. A product can vary in price while the SNLT remains the same. That’s why it is often analogized to a gravitational force that supply and demand oscillate around. The main way demand effects SNLT is if a rising demand incentivizes investment that increases efficiency. Then SNLT shifts, but market demand and SNLT are only in a relationship here. They’re not the same thing.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 19:02:57 No. 663125
>>662879 Supply of bait threads has yet to outpace demand for bait threads. Marx failed to consider the impact of shit posting.
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 22:20:30 No. 663324
We had this exact same thread before
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 23:03:01 No. 663385
>>662867 You tried this before and we btfo’d you. When will you learn?
Anonymous 2021-12-27 (Mon) 23:37:08 No. 663432
>>662867 oh hey I remember you from that thread on /lit/ or maybe it was /his/ earlier today. why you would come here when you were already BTFO'd I do not understand
Unique IPs: 21